Bulova Classic Automatic 98A139 vs Casio Pro Trek PRG270-1
Two timepieces compared — $250–$500 vs $150–$250
Quick Verdict
The Casio Pro Trek PRG270-1 ($150–$250) delivers Tough Solar Quartz (No Battery Change) technology in the tier below the Bulova Classic Automatic 98A139 ($250–$500). The Pro Trek PRG270-1 measures 54.6 × 52.4 × 15mm and is rated 100m (10 ATM). The Classic Automatic 98A139 justifies its premium with Japanese Movement heritage and Automatic, 21 Jewels. Both represent excellent choices in the timepiece category.
Transparency — We earn a small commission on purchases made through our Amazon links. This doesn't affect our editorial independence.
Specifications Compared
| Feature | Bulova Classic Automatic 98A139 | Casio Pro Trek PRG270-1 |
|---|---|---|
| Price | $250–$500 | $150–$250 |
| Case Size | 45mm | 54.6 × 52.4 × 15mm |
| Movement | Automatic, 21 Jewels | Tough Solar (Solar Quartz) |
| Caliber Type | Self-Winding Automatic | Tough Solar Quartz (No Battery Change) |
| Power Reserve | — | Tough Solar (Rechargeable) |
| Water Resistance | 30m (3 ATM) | 100m (10 ATM) |
| Crystal | Domed Crystal | Mineral Glass |
| Case Material | Black Ion-Plated Stainless Steel | Resin |
| Origin | Japanese Movement | Casio (Japan) |
Category-by-Category Analysis
Design & Aesthetics
Bulova's design language vs Casio's approach
The Bulova Classic Automatic 98A139 features a Black Ion-Plated Stainless Steel case at 45mm with Domed Crystal protection. The Casio Pro Trek PRG270-1 offers Resin construction at 54.6 × 52.4 × 15mm with Mineral Glass. Both represent their brand's distinct design philosophy and heritage.
Movement & Performance
Automatic, 21 Jewels vs Tough Solar (Solar Quartz)
The Classic Automatic 98A139 runs the Automatic, 21 Jewels (Self-Winding Automatic, standard power reserve) at standard frequency. The Pro Trek PRG270-1 uses the Tough Solar (Solar Quartz) (Tough Solar Quartz (No Battery Change), Tough Solar (Rechargeable) reserve) at standard. Power reserves are closely matched.
Wearability & Fit
45mm vs 54.6 × 52.4 × 15mm — different wrist presence
At 45mm, the Classic Automatic 98A139 wears more compactly on smaller wrists compared to the Pro Trek PRG270-1 at 54.6 × 52.4 × 15mm. Water resistance differs: 30m (3 ATM) vs 100m (10 ATM).
Value & Cost of Ownership
Casio sits in the lower tier
The Bulova Classic Automatic 98A139 sits at $250–$500 and the Casio Pro Trek PRG270-1 at $150–$250. On the specs that outlast any price: the Classic Automatic 98A139 uses Domed Crystal with a standard reserve, against Mineral Glass and Tough Solar (Rechargeable) on the Pro Trek PRG270-1. Service intervals are typically 5-7 years for both.
Water Resistance
30m (3 ATM) vs 100m (10 ATM)
The Classic Automatic 98A139 is rated to 30m (3 ATM) while the Pro Trek PRG270-1 handles 100m (10 ATM). The Pro Trek PRG270-1 offers superior water resistance.
Our Verdict
Bulova
Classic Automatic 98A139
Choose the Bulova Classic Automatic 98A139 if you prioritize Self-Winding Automatic engineering, Japanese Movement craftsmanship, and 30m (3 ATM) water resistance. At $250–$500, it delivers Automatic, 21 Jewels with solid power reserve.
Check Price on AmazonCasio
Pro Trek PRG270-1
Choose the Casio Pro Trek PRG270-1 if you value Tough Solar Quartz (No Battery Change) technology, Casio (Japan) heritage, and 54.6 × 52.4 × 15mm proportions. At $150–$250, the Tough Solar (Solar Quartz) with Tough Solar (Rechargeable) power reserve makes it a compelling choice.
Check Price on AmazonThe Bottom Line
The Bulova Classic Automatic 98A139 and Casio Pro Trek PRG270-1 represent two distinct approaches to the timepiece category — the Bulova bringing Japanese Movement tradition while Casio delivers Casio (Japan) engineering.
Frequently Asked Questions
More Comparisons
Tag Heuer Carrera Chronograph vs Bulova Classic Automatic 98A139
Tag Heuer's chronograph meets Bulova's timepiece
Tag Heuer Carrera Chronograph vs Casio Pro Trek PRG270-1
Tag Heuer's chronograph meets Casio's timepiece
Tissot PRX Powermatic 80 vs Bulova Classic Automatic 98A139
Two timepieces compared — $500–$1,000 vs $250–$500
Explore These Watches
How This Page Was Made
Our comparisons are generated from a hand-maintained specification database and reviewed under our editorial standards. We use AI tools to assemble pages from that data. We don’t invent specs: every number traces back to the database, and when we correct an entry, the fix is applied site-wide. As an Amazon Associate, The Horologist earns from qualifying purchases.